Reflections on the Bomb
Until I read this post at Whosoever Desires, I had forgotten that today is the 64th anniversary of the incineration of Nagasaki by an atomic bomb. I’d like to highlight the following passage, quoted in the original post, written by Dorothy Day in The Catholic Worker:
Mr. Truman was jubilant. President Truman. “True man:” what a strange name, come to think of it. We refer to Jesus Christ as true God and true Man. Truman is a true man of his time in that he was jubilant. He was not a son of God, brother of Christ, brother of the Japanese, jubilating as he did. He went from table to table on the cruiser which was bringing him home from the Big Three conference, telling the great news; “jubilant” the newspapers said. Jubilate Deo. We have killed 318,000 Japanese.
That is, we hope we have killed them, the Associated Press, on page one, column one of the Herald Tribune says. The effect is hoped for, not known. It is to be hoped they are vaporized, our Japanese brothers, scattered, men, women and babies, to the four winds, over the seven seas. Perhaps we will breathe their dust into our nostrils, feel them in the fog of New York on our faces, feel them in the rain on the hills of Eton.
Jubilate Deo. President Truman was jubilant. We have created. We have created destruction. We have created a new element, called Pluto. Nature had nothing to do with it.
The papers list the scientists (the murderers) who are credited with perfecting this new weapon. Scientists, army officers, great universities, and captains of industry-all are given credit lines in the press for their work of preparing the bomb-and other bombs, the President assures us, are in production now.
Everyone says, “I wonder what the Pope thinks of it?” How everyone turns to the Vatican for judgment, even though they do not seem to listen to the voice there! But our Lord Himself has already pronounced judgment on the atomic bomb. When James and John (John the beloved) wished to call down fire from heaven on their enemies, Jesus said:
“You know not of what spirit you are. The Son of Man came not to destroy souls but to save.” He said also, “What you do unto the least of these my brethren, you do unto me.
Nuclear weapons are intrinsically, objectively evil, the tools and creation of Satan himself. One need not peruse the nuances of Catholic just war theory to know that there is no possible reason for their use that could escape the judgment of the Most High God, Who avenges the death of the innocent.
Ah, but the the Bomb ended the war, saved millions of American lives! And? We are not permitted to do evil in the hope that good might result. When we dropped atomic weapons on Hiroshima and Nagasaki, we were well aware of their power, having previously tested one in the New Mexico desert. When presented with the option to drop them on non-populated areas as a warning to the Japanese, President Truman and his advisers insisted that the targets be cities. We did not simply proceed reluctantly with the knowledge that the Bomb would kill thousands of civilians; these deaths were fully willed and intended.
But what about deterrence? Surely it’s not evil to keep the nukes that we already have, just to make sure that the Russians and Chinese don’t use theirs! Deterrence implies a willingness on our part to use our weapons, a willingness, indeed a desire, to have the consolation of dragging several hundred million Russians and/or Chinese with us should we go down. To suggest that an American president, having repeatedly and publicly affirmed this willingness (as the strategy of deterrence requires), would show mercy and choose not to take these hundred million “enemy” civilians with us when faced with imminent annihilation betrays, in my view, a dangerously strong faith in fallen human nature.The power to completely destroy the Earth belongs rightfully only to God; in human hands, it will inevitably result in catastrophe, no matter how many nice neat theories of “deterrence” are constructed by the think tanks and defense contractors. To suggest that the fact that it has not happened yet makes it any less inevitable is a fallacy of the highest order.
Nuclear weapons are an affront both to the dignity of man and the Divine Majesty of God, and must be eliminated from the face of the Earth.
Comments are closed.
Ultimately, the nuclear bombing of Japan was a decision based on our experiences at Okinawa, and our desire for unconditional surrender.
We could have pursued terms short of unconditional surrender, but we chose not to. This is not to say that the Japanese actions were just, because they clearly were not. But that doesn’t excuse the targeting of civilians, either through the firebombing of Japanese cities which killed more than the nuclear bombs at Hiroshima and Nagasaki, or the nuclear bombings themselves. There were alternatives, albeit costly ones in time, money, and materiel. we could have enforced a blockade. We could have shifted forces to the liberation of the Philippines and China. We could have backed off of mainland Japan and focused on the targets of their aggression. We could have also declared victory and walked away.
I prefer to think that in most cases stupidity is a better explanation than malice, however in this case I think that both were at play. Roosevelt was a socialist, and socialists are concerned with control rather than justice, and so the nuclear program came into being. Truman was a second rate socialist, as well as a second rate leader, and so he went with the existing plan rather than questioning it.
It would have sufficed to undo the acts of Japanese aggression and walk away. The fact that we didn’t bears consequences that we still deal with today, in the role of government, the role of the military, and our attitudes towards the rest of the world.
socialists are concerned with control rather than justice
Incorrect.
I’ve got to agree with Michael. Socialists are concerned with justice. Take a look at Harrington’s book on Socialism or check out the website of the Democratic Socialists of America. They’re very concerned with justice.
“Roosevelt was a socialist?” I wish… it would be good to read Howard Zinn’s articles on Roosevelt in his The Politics of History and in his The Zinn Reader: 2nd Edition. Zinn has claimed to be both a socialist and an anarchist. He makes a compelling case that Roosevelt is anything but a socialist–he’s just a Democrat. Similar points have been made recently in articles found in Harper’s Magazine regarding Obama as a socialist. I think it’s time we realize that no US President has ever been–nor likely will ever be–a socialist. They’re just Democrats and Republicans, and they’re very concerned with the doctrines of Manifest Destiny and American Exceptionalism, not socialism. And, frankly, for those of us that have socialist leanings it’s kind of offensive having a Democratic given the illustrious label of “socialist.” (Please note… I don’t mean this to sound as grumpy as it may sound in print).
Furthermore, I want to say thanks for this post! It’s wonderful!
BTW – What you say in the post is very similar to something Gorbachev recently talked about in the latest issue of the Progressive magazine. In fact, Gorbachev goes even further and explains how our massive nuclear arms race is going to end up destroying us if we’re not careful. He cites a lot of evidence of terrorist groups likely acquiring nuclear weapons through the black market in Russia. And, he wonders what would’ve happened if the US and the former USSR had in fact disarmed. Would we be so concerned today about terrorists acquiring a nuclear device? Gorbachev doubts it. He also argues–cleverly I think–that if the US and the former USSR started disarming then they both might have the moral high ground as they yell at Iran and N. Korea to disarm. Right now, though, Gorbachev thinks that the US looks as if its upholding a double standard–and it is.
And I should point out that Gorbachev is a socialist–he might still be a Marxist. But he wants justice! Honestly, I think we’ve got to come to grips with the fact that Gorbachev had more to do with ending the Cold War than Reagan. For my money it seems like it was Pope JP II and Gorbachev that did most of the work–not the United States government.
David
I’m not going to defend the use of nuclear weapons as an example of a just action in war. I agree that it is horrific to know that they were used in such a way. However, I think you err in this statement:
“Nuclear weapons are intrinsically, objectively evil, the tools and creation of Satan himself.”
To call the thing intrinsically evil is to say that there is no possible use which is good and just. I would say, rather, that nuclear weapons do have uses which could be good and just and save far more lives for their use.
Of course, none of these uses are during war or remotely in that context.
If, for instance, an asteroid were identified which was going to impact the earth – a nuclear weapon could be used to intercept it and provide the explosive power to alter its orbit. Alternatively, if there were some scenario where the plates of the earth needed some jostling to prevent horrible earthquakes and catastrophe, a nuclear weapon can provide the necessary thumping underground.
In these cases, the nuclear weapon is simply a tool of man’s creation and has neither evil means nor evil ends in mind.
Now, whether such uses can be used as an excuse to maintain a stockpile is another matter because, as you rightly point out: a willingness to use them in a time of war has already been demonstrated. I’m not addressing that question, but I don’t believe they are intrinsically evil things.
Peace,
Mike J.
Mike… Catholic Social Teaching seems pretty darn clear on nuclear weapons… You might want to have a look at the book It’s a Sin to Build a Nuclear Bomb by Fr. McSorley.
Mike,
If nuclear energy were harnessed with the intent to use against asteroids and tectonic shifts on a regular basis then, first, we wouldn’t be living in any close approximation to the actual world and so no doubt many other things would be different as well, and, second, these uses of nuclear energy would not be considered weaponry–in the same way that a nuclear reactor built for civilian energy needs is not considered a weapon. A nuclear weapon–bomb, missile, etc.–is by definition created with the point of disproportionate destruction. That is why it is intrinsically evil. Elizabeth Anscombe has a very intriguing essay entitled “Christians the the Creation of Nuclear Weapons Built for the Destruction of Cities” (or something like that), wherein she argues that there is a powerful case to be made that the only appropriate response for a Christian is to opt-out of national security positions in a country that has proved itself open to using the bomb.
Before launching into an attack on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it might be worthwhile to read up on the war itself. It began with the Japanese invasions of Korea and Manchuria, and then China and so into WWII.
R.J. Rummel gives a conservative estimate of Japanese democide:
“From all the assumptions, consolidations and calculations made, the overall Japanese democide in World War II can now be estimated (lines 381-384), and Japanese democide in China included (line 386). This gives a total democide of 3,056,000 to 10,595,000 with a likely mid-total of 5,964,000 people killed”.
Add to this the orders given by the Japanese government that all POWs were to be killed before the Japanese army withdrew. [Eric Lomax. THE RAILWAY MAN].
The bombs reduced Japan from a conquering militaristic nation to the rather calm country it is today.
Many of the scientists working on the bomb were Jewish. They had little hesitation about the Japanese targets. One wonder what their reactions might have been to bombing Germany and the camps. How many were lost in the camps? How many in the two bombings?
Before launching into an attack on the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, it might be worthwhile to read up on the war itself.
No need. The bombings of Hiroshim and Nagasaki were intrinsically evil actions.
Your ethical methodology with regard to the bomb is not reconcilable with Catholic ethics.
Before launching into an attack on the legalization of abortion in the United States, it might be worthwhile to read up on the plight of women in industrialized countries…
The real scandal is not the act of killing so many innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not to mention Dresden and many other sites of mass murder from the air perpetrated by the Allies in the war)–the real scandal is how so many normal people on “our side,” then and now, have no moral qualms about these acts, which contravene not only the morality of pacifism, but the traditional morality of “the rules of war.”
In a fight to the death with great evil (and WWII was that), we good guys went blind and mad with rage and fear–understandable, perhaps, but it did not have to be that way, and never has to be that way, nor is the only solution pacifism–which in this fallen world can itself be the immoral choice leading to the slaughter of innocents.
It’s the toughest thing there is, keeping your head under extreme circumstnaces. George Bush did not manage it, as also those who followed him f
Gabriel: I never denied the atrocities committed by the Japanese and the Germans. Obviously, I think that World War II was a just war from the American perspective. This does not, however, mean that all of our tactics were morally acceptable.
Gabriel Austin – the most effective way of stopping the Germans and Japanese was to use ground forces to occupy their territory.
Saturation bombing of population centers by the allies of German and Japanese cities in order to break the will of the civilians in those countries was tried and failed.
That’s one of the common mis-perceptions about World War II and its aftermath: the idea that the allies fought the war so utterly mercilessly as to make the Germans and Japanese populations unwilling to risk another war, and thus be “docile” as you describe.
This isn’t really how it went down, though. Production in German factories continued production (and even increased production in some cases) right up to the time they were physically seized by Army units. Area bombing had the opposite effect of breaking the will of the civilian populations; it hardened their resolve.
But even leaving the question of effectiveness aside – the deliberate targeting of civilians is morally indefensible from the perspective of Catholic teaching.
The real scandal is not the act of killing so many innocents in Hiroshima and Nagasaki (not to mention Dresden and many other sites of mass murder from the air perpetrated by the Allies in the war)–the real scandal is how so many normal people on “our side,” then and now, have no moral qualms about these acts, which contravene not only the morality of pacifism, but the traditional morality of “the rules of war.”
In a fight to the death with great evil (and WWII was that), we good guys went blind and mad with rage and fear–understandable, perhaps, but it did not have to be that way, and never has to be that way, nor is the only solution pacifism–which in this fallen world can itself be the immoral choice leading to the slaughter of innocents (although most often the voice of pacifism is closer to the truth than the voice of the tribe).
It’s the toughest thing there is, keeping your head under extreme circumstances. George Bush did not manage it, as also those who followed him failed to do. We who stood by and did little to stop him except rant at his image on TV–we failed too. We keep failing, and the only thing to do about it is to strive to follow Christ more closely, as people like Dorothy Day tried to do with real integrity.
I alwys find it very enlightening to ask some of the noisiest so-called pro-life Catholics where they stand on this issue. To be sure, some are consistent. But many others quickly revert to a tribalism justified by consequentialism.
We’ve touched on socialism, the fascism of the 1930′s and horrors of war.
I would just note that with bravery and putting aside petty and significant differences, the parlimentary alliance of Catholics, Socialists and Liberals preserved German democracy during the Weimer years. Following the 1933 elections, no party had a majority, including the Catholic-Socialist-Liberal coalition. The Conservatives had a choice, join the grand coalition and give it a stable majority or join with the Nazis in a minority government.
Catholics and Socialists joined together to do what they could to save us from fascism and world war. Unfortunately, in their hour of need, they got no help from the Conservatives.
In any discussion of ethics or morality, three things must be looked at before making a specific decision.
Intention
The Object of the Act
Circumstances
Having said this, I emphasize the “specific” decision.
Aquinas and the natural law tradition would argue that the “general” principles of morality are, frankly, not difficult to arrive at using human reasoning. “Do Not Murder” would be one of them, with murder meaning the intentional taking of innocent life.
In the case of using atomic weapons, we look to a particular situation, employ the three mentioned “tools” above to determine if the dropping of the atomic bombs on japan were justified.
Murder is in all circumstances wrong – it is a universal and unchanging ethical norm. If the use of atomic bombs (our particular circumstance) involves the intentional killing of innocent citizens, then i see no way such an action can be justified.
We fall into consquentalism or utilitiarianism if we say that the cirumcstances justfied the action. These ethical theories are rejected by the Church.
Also, I do not see how the “double-effect” principle applies here at all.
One final note: Did not Pope Pius XII condemn our action in the dropping of the bombs ?
I was a bit sloppy in my above remarks. To be clear, the Church (and sound Philosophy) declares that there ARE universal, unchanging ethical truths, and that human reason is capable of discovering them.
We invoke the three “tools” of intention, the object of the act and circumstances to see if a particular action violates the universal, unchanging ethical truths (such as murder). If the particular action indeed violates such a universal norm, then it is an evil action. Murder is instrinsically evil. Always.